Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: RE: RE: RE: Reference group for categorical interactions
From
"Hussein, Mustafa (Mustafa Hussien)" <[email protected]>
To
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject
st: RE: RE: RE: Reference group for categorical interactions
Date
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:53:52 +0000
Why would you need to reconcile that? The purpose of having interaction terms along with main effects is to get a grasp of the whole picture. Have you tried to see the marginal effects on your separate terms (in your model with interactions)? They may too differ from what you would expect from their ORs. Though widely used, ORs mask the heterogeneity in the marginal effects across subjects, and their interpretation in the presence of interaction terms is not straightforward. I would suggest sticking to the marginal effects at the means, if that's meaningful, or estimate them at some relevant representative values for other covariates.
A very user friendly reference (including instructions on some useful commands for interaction effects) is by Karaca-Mandic, Norton & Dowd (2012): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01314.x/abstract
very best,
-Mustafa
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Valle, Giuseppina [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: RE: RE: Reference group for categorical interactions
Thank you. That was a thought that crossed my mind. Do you know any way of reconciling this?
Thanks,
Pina
________________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Hussein, Mustafa (Mustafa Hussien) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: RE: Reference group for categorical interactions
Hi Pina,
I wonder if that's because of the odds ratios/marginal effects associated with your un-interacted terms "maleoral" and "agesex". Margins takes into account all the ways a given term is expressed on the rhs of your model.
Hope that helps.
Mustafa
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Valle, Giuseppina [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: Reference group for categorical interactions
Hello. I am trying to examine an interaction between two categorical predictors, each with 4 categories. For both of the variables:
1 = early
2 = normative
3 = late
4 = none
I want 2 or "normative" to be the referent for both variables, so I use the code:
fvset base 2 maleoral
fvset base 2 agesex
Then for the regression, I run:
svy, subpop(if gender==1): logistic conflict i.race ///
agew4 i.famstw1 fameduc paedmis faminc incmiss adrel ///
i.respeduc i.respinc sexforce std nonmar ///
i.maleoral i.agesex i.maleoral#i.agesex
I get the following for the interaction term:
maleoral#agesex |
1 1 | 2.626719 1.802462 1.41 0.162 .6756814 10.2114
1 3 | 1 (empty)
1 4 | .6300918 1.185243 -0.25 0.806 .015239 26.05259
3 1 | 2.467789 2.386861 0.93 0.352 .3640513 16.72836
3 3 | 2.14585 .7743234 2.12 0.036 1.050786 4.382122
3 4 | 2.751272 1.981607 1.41 0.162 .6616117 11.441
4 1 | 1.601467 1.969695 0.38 0.702 .1404772 18.25703
4 3 | .5788523 .4207023 -0.75 0.453 .1374108 2.438454
4 4 | .3059179 .2770581 -1.31 0.193 .0509737 1.83596
I thought my reference group was respondents who were normative on "maleoral" AND normative on "agesex." But when I graph these, the results do not line up.
When I run the code:
margins maleoral#agesex, subpop(if gender==1) atmeans
Here is what I get:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Delta-method
| Margin Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
maleoral#agesex |
1 1 | .2800785 .0805011 3.48 0.001 .1222993 .4378577
1 2 | .2389972 .1031905 2.32 0.021 .0367476 .4412468
1 3 | . (not estimable)
1 4 | .0800896 .1295187 0.62 0.536 -.1737624 .3339417
2 1 | .1584989 .0410836 3.86 0.000 .0779765 .2390213
2 2 | .2854029 .0164211 17.38 0.000 .2532181 .3175876
2 3 | .1714103 .0296434 5.78 0.000 .1133102 .2295103
2 4 | .1494563 .0549283 2.72 0.007 .0417989 .2571137
3 1 | .1995144 .1381576 1.44 0.149 -.0712694 .4702983
3 2 | .1763853 .0405574 4.35 0.000 .0968943 .2558763
3 3 | .1922673 .0243652 7.89 0.000 .1445124 .2400222
3 4 | .2058666 .0774489 2.66 0.008 .0540695 .3576636
4 1 | .3372326 .2668201 1.26 0.206 -.1857253 .8601904
4 2 | .4025265 .108945 3.69 0.000 .1889982 .6160547
4 3 | .1680508 .0923209 1.82 0.069 -.0128949 .3489965
4 4 | .083139 .0436156 1.91 0.057 -.002346 .1686239
According to the odds ratios above, 3 and 3 (late and late) should results in a greater probability of my outcome compared to 2 and 2 (normative and normative), but according to the margins, 3 and 3 = 0.19 and 2 and 2 = 0.28. Am I confused about my reference group?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Pina Valle
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/